The following peer-reviewed science review papers (and also the mythology essays) are available in full text through the buttons above
FORTHCOMING: Moxon, SP (2019). The falsity of identity politics (PC): negative attitude is specifically to males and for any difference, in policing male sexual access by gate-keeping group membership. New Male Studies 8(2). https://stevemoxon.co.uk/the-falsity-of-identity-politics/ [Find also under the button above, ‘The Falsity of Identity Politics’]
Moxon, SP (2019). The sexes serve to purge mutations by selection on males, boosting the function of sex to maintain genomic integrity. New Male Studies 8(1), 25-51. https://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/293/354 [Find also under the button above, ‘Sexes Function to Purge Mutation Via Selection on Males’]
Moxon, SP. (2018). Misogyny has no scientific basis of any kind: the evidence is of philogyny. New Male Studies 7(2), 26-42. https://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/282/345 [Find also under the button above, ‘Misogyny has no Scientific basis’]
Moxon, SP. (2017). Only Male Genital Modification is a Form of Control; its Female Counterpart Originated as a Female-Initiated Competitive Ploy. New Male Studies 6(2), 126-165. http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/262/318 [Find also under the button above, ‘Only Male Genital Modification is a Form of Control’]
NEW BOOK. November 2016 (book) Sex Difference Explained: From DNA to Society — Purging Gene Copy Errors. This is a ‘bottom-up’ from biology cutting-edge holistic understanding of men/ women: a layman’s guide to the converging lines of evidence for profound male-female distinction serving complementarity. [For papers going back to 2009, see below the book blurb.]
A monograph for the New Male Studies journal, it’s available on Amazon.co.uk & Amazon.com in both paperback & Kindle versions; plus it’s open-access on the NMS website. Amazon US paperback: http://tinyurl.com/h8s5ujs Kindle eBook http://tinyurl.com/gwtsdpo Amazon UK paperback: http://tinyurl.com/zh3cnux Kindle eBook http://tinyurl.com/hlxg5ko [Find also under the button above, ‘Sex Difference Explained’]
This is the first time anyone has properly attempted to put forward a truly integrated account of human sociality, utilising all the latest lines of evidence in theory re male hierarchy, female ‘personal network’, the very different in-grouping according to sex, and pair-bonding.
The core argument is that all major aspects of male-female human sociality necessarily stem from biological principles; which all arise in solving the core problem faced by all life-forms: the relentless build-up of mistakes in the repeated copying of genes.
Explanation here has to be bottom-up, not top-down, because that is the direction of causation: all else is feedback, which in inherent in any system if it is to avoid breakdown. Culture – that is, the facility to have and behave in this way – could not have evolved unless its function is to feed back to and fine-tune the very underlying biology that gave rise to it. So the more complex the organism becomes, then the better it gets at being faithful to and expressing its biology. The notion that instead somehow we go off on a novel tangent and ‘escape’ biology is the very opposite of what happens.
To deal with all the accumulated gene replication error, the ‘bad’ genes somehow have to be filtered out, and this is the function of the male: why males came into being, and why men so fiercely compete with one another to form a hierarchy.
The female contribution to this ‘genetic filter’ mechanism is carefully to choose only the most dominant/prestigious males, cross-checking that indeed they do possess the best gene sets. This ensures genetic mutations and other errors that would seriously compromise reproduction are purged from the local gene pool.
With men tied to a hierarchy, women evolved to ‘marry out’ to avoid in-breeding. In preparation for this, girls have a very different social organisation, rehearsing for when later they have to make close bonds with non-kin, stranger-females for mutual child-care. This explains why female grouping is so tight and exclusionary, whereas males group all-inclusively.
Pair-bonding serves to exclude lower-ranked, whilst allowing access by still higher-ranked males; and to provide a serial father of children, thereby in effect projecting forward in time a woman’s peak fertility, compensating for her deteriorating store of eggs, and consequent declining fertility and attractiveness. But although this is clearly all in the female interest, the male also gets something out of ‘marriage’: a more fertile partner than he would be able to acquire for ‘no-strings’ (promiscuous) sex. It’s cross-sex bargaining.
The upshot is that there’s an underlying sex dichotomy, to be sure; but it’s perfectly complementary, with the sexes of equal importance in what amounts to a symbiosis.
Further science papers. THE HUMAN SEXES & SOCIAL STRUCTURE/ DYNAMICS EXPLAINED ‘BOTTOM-UP’ FROM BIOLOGY Cross-disciplinary research centred in evolutionary biology/ psychology, biological anthropology. ‘Not sex difference but sex dichotomy: in fundamental motivation, not ability’.
Moxon SP (2015) Stress mechanism is sex-specific: Female amelioration or escape from stress to avoid compromising reproduction contrasts with male utilisation or in effect manufacture of stress to fulfil male ‘genetic filter’ function. New Male Studies 4(3) 50-62. http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/194/222 [Find also under the button above, ‘Stress Mechanism is Sex-Specific’]
oxon SP (2015) Competitiveness is profoundly sex-differential, consistent with being biologically based and within-, not between-sex. New Male Studies4(2) 39-51. http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/186 [Find also under the button above, ‘Competitiveness is a Male Domain’]
Moxon SP (2014) Partner violence as female-specific in aetiology. New Male Studies 3(3) 69-92. http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/149 [Find also under the button above, ‘Partner Violence Female Aetiology’]
Moxon SP (2014) Intimate-partner violence is not merely non-‘gendered’ but predominantly and apparently in essence female-perpetrated: the inverse of ideological constructs now debunked, and congruent with inter-sexual dynamics and the basis of human pair-bonding, (commissioned as a book chapter in Partner Violence: Risk Factors, Therapeutic Interventions and Psychological Impact. Nova Science Publishing). https://stevemoxon.co.uk/partner-violence-mostly-by-women/ [Find also under the button above, ‘Partner Violence Mostly BY women’]
Moxon SP (2014) From DNA repair to social minds: The root of sex-dichotomous psychology and behaviour. Presentation for the conference ‘From DNA To Social Minds’, University of York, June/July 2014. https://stevemoxon.co.uk/from-dna-repair-to-social-minds/ [Find also under the button above, ‘From DNA Repair to Social Minds’]
Moxon SP (2014) Demographic transition as caused by biological effects of social dislocation: adaptive reproductive-suppression triggered by ‘crowding’ stress of males transmitted epigenetically to female offspring multi-generationally; plus out-breeding fertility depression through genetic incompatibilities. [Accepted for conference presentation, but yet to be delivered] https://stevemoxon.co.uk/adaptive-demographic-transition-biological-cause-population/ [Find also under the button above, ‘Adaptive Demographic Transition’]
Moxon SP (2013) Human pair-bonding as primarily a service to the female [in excluding other males of lower (but not higher) mate-value, and a buffer against her own age-related mate-value decline]. New Male Studies 2 (2) 24-38 http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/71 [Find also under the button above, ‘Pair-Bonding Serves Women’]
Moxon SP (2012) The origin of the sexual divide in the ‘genetic filter’ function: Male disadvantage and why it is not perceived. New Male Studies 1(3) 96-124 http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/47 [Find also under the button above, ‘The Sexual Divide’]
Moxon SP (2012) The Reasons Why Women Won’t Match Men in the Workplace Irrespective of Whatever Action is taken. Submission to the inquiry ‘Women in the Workplace’, for The Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee, House of Commons. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmbis/writev/womeninworkplace/m22.htm also at https://stevemoxon.co.uk/why-few-women-are-at-the-top-women-in-the-workplace/ [Find also under the button, above, ‘Why Few Women are at the Top’.]
Moxon SP (2011) Beyond staged retreat behind virtual ‘gender paradigm’ barricades: The rise and fall of the misrepresentation of partner-violence and its eclipse by an understanding of mate-guarding. Journal of Aggression, Conflict & Peace Research 3(1) 45-54 https://stevemoxon.co.uk/gender-violence-paradigm-dead-beyond-staged-retreat/ [Find also under the button above, ‘Partner Violence is Mainly FEMALE’.]
Moxon SP (2010) Culture is biology: Why we cannot ‘transcend’ our genes — or ourselves. Politics & Society (journal). Symposium, ‘How Is Culture Biological?’ http://www.politicsandculture.org/2010/04/29/symposium-on-the-question-how-is-culture-biological-six-essays-and-discussions-essay-1-by-steve-moxon-culture-is-biology-why-we-cannot-transcend-our-genes%E2%80%94or-ourselves/ [Find also under the button above, ‘Gender Violence Paradigm is Dead’]
Moxon SP (2009) Dominance as adaptive stressing and ranking of males, serving to allocate reproduction by differential self-suppressed fertility: Towards a fully biological understanding of social systems. Medical Hypotheses 73(1) 5-14 https://stevemoxon.co.uk/dominance-as-adaptive-stressing-to-allocate-reproduction/ [Find also under the button above, ‘Dominance as Adaptive Stressing’]
Moxon SP (2008) The Woman Racket: The New Science Explaining How the Sexes Relate at Work, at Play and in Society. Imprint Academic. [Book] http://www.imprint.co.uk/books/TWR.html
Moxon SP (2012) The origin and nature of warfare is not explained but obscured by cultural-anthropological and feminist perspectives, that generate implausible notions of how warfare can be subdued [This paper was in journal peer review but was ‘spiked’ for political and personal reasons by the cultural anthropologist Douglas Fry, whose position, shared with his protogé, Judith Hand, this paper counters. It is to Hand’s political, non-scientific paper that originally this was in reply.] https://stevemoxon.co.uk/why-woman-wont-whack-war/ [Find under the button, above, ‘Why Woman Won’t Whack War’.]
Further review papers are in preparation, notably an overview of ostensible inter-sexual competition, revealing it to be intra-sexual competition and inter-sexual sexual display. A new book is also on the way: there has been so much development in the science that a major cross-disciplinary overview is needed rather than an update of The Woman Racket.
Unconnected with the science review work, but this is another window on what makes people and society tick. There are here major essays on mythology (see summaries below): one re the hegemonic mythology of today (‘identity politics’ and ‘political correctness’), the others on the seminal ancient mythologies of Robin Hood and (brand new) King Arthur, plus an account of the seeming early-modern pastiche of the famous dragon legend of Wantley, but which turns out to be ancient and medieval — and itself connected to Robin Hood myth.
Identity Politics & ‘Political Correctness’: Not Consideration for Minorities but Hatred for the Masses; Specifically ‘the workers’ — Tracing How and Why it Arose and Developed Reveals the Greatest Political Fraud in History
‘Identity politics’ (sometimes dubbed ‘political correctness’) is the result of a political-Left major backlash against the mass of ordinary people (in Europe and ‘the West’), beginning in the 1920s/30s, in the wake of the persistent failure of the political-Left to effect Marxist ‘revolution’ or any real change through democracy. In shifting the blame away from Marxist theory and the gullibility of those adhering to it, and on to those the theory prescribed and predicted would have been the beneficiaries if only they had responded accordingly (‘the workers’); then the cognitive-dissonance within the political-left mindset caused by this crisis to an extent could be salved. The intellectual rationalisation of this was first by invoking Freud’s discredited notion of ‘repression’ to attempt to explain a supposed impact on ‘the workers’ by ‘capitalism’ acting within the context of the family. With most workers being male, and the principal ‘agents of social change’ in a ‘revolution’ being envisaged as likewise, then the theoreticians had in mind the male as ‘head’ of the family. It was a simple extension in political-Left imagination for ‘the worker’ to change from being the putative conduit of the impact of ‘capitalism’ to its embodiment, leaving women to become the replacement supposed ‘oppressed’ and ‘disadvantaged’. This implausible and unfalsifiable non-scientific nonsense mainly festered within academia until the co-option after 1968 by the political-Left of the seeming revolutionary US ‘civil rights’ movement. This added to the ‘new oppressed’ the category ‘non-white’, which like that of women could be envisaged as an inversion of a retrospective stereotype of ‘the worker’. In the wake of the similarly seeming revolutionary Stonewall riots of 1969, the ‘gay rights’ lobby was also co-opted to further add to the abstract demonised aspects of ‘the worker’, so that he was now male plus ‘white’ plus heterosexual. The strands of the ‘new oppressed’ combined in a new (neo-Marxist) conceptualisation to account for these political shifts after the fact, and came to be termed ‘identity politics’ (or more pejoratively but accurately, ‘cultural Marxism’, and latterly dubbed ‘modernising’ [sic] in political parties). The deemed ‘groups’ replacing ‘the workers’ – subsequently expanded to embrace the disabled, the elderly, trans-sexuals and the obese – are abstractions rather than groups per se, and in any case far too heterogeneous to be in reality ‘oppressed’ or ‘disadvantaged’; providing a window on the sophistry and origin of this politics as other than it purports. The pretence to egalitarianism is perfect cover for what ‘identity politics’ actually is: the very perennial and ubiquitous elitist-separatism the political-Left ethos attacks and denies; rendered a quasi-religion, being an ideology in the wake of the Christian notion of ‘the promised land’ in the utopia/dystopia of equality-of-outcome. This represents a continuation of the process of a shift in religiosity from envisaging a ‘god’ as being in man’s image, through the humanist deification of mankind, to worship of a supposed dynamic of teleological social change (originally understood in Marxism as a form of explicit cognition known as ‘the dialectic’). ‘Identity politics’, in being both not what it pretends to be and now so widespread and entrenched across the whole and every facet of the establishment in Anglophone nations and ‘the West’ generally, can properly be regarded as the greatest political fraud in history.
The Origin of Robin Hood Mythology
The first-ever etymological investigation into the origin of Robin Hood mythology — RH obviously not being a real personage. The conclusion is that it is clearly ancient and not medieval: ‘Celtic’; specifically (Scottish) Gaelic rodaidh, diminutive of ruadhrí, ‘red king’ (the mythic figure who sacrifices himself because his regal blood is required to be shed on to the land to ensure its fertility); this meaning and etymology entwined with that denoting the deity to whom the sacrifice is made: rìbhinn (rìgh-beann), ‘king-wife’, meaning ‘maiden-queen’ — the Celtic deity Bríd (Bríg, Brighid). This was later qualified by hood from Welsh hud, ‘magic’, ‘fairy’, in the sense of ‘devil’, referring to ‘the old religion’.
Unmasking King Arthur: Etymology reveals the basis of Arthurian legend
Following the etymological investigation into the Robin Hood name, the same approach to tackle the riddle of the origin of Arthurian legend reveals effectively the same meaning of ‘serpent’, in the same language (Gaelic), and which surely again alludes to the pan-‘Celtic’ deity Bridhe.
The Dragon of Wantley
This overturns the longstanding theory of the origin of what was England’s most famous dragon legend. The early-modern ballad was not to do with the Wortley Lords but the Counter-Reformation, involving a law suit initiated and conducted solely by George More of Sheffield against George Talbot, sixth Earl of Shrewsbury. Furthermore, there are localised ancient mythological roots in ‘Celtic’ serpent and, it seems, ‘water-monster’ place-namings, with a medieval ‘dragon v knight’ overlay through the local presence of the Knights Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem.